nmm 22 4500ICPSR26602MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2010 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR26602MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Jail Facilities, 2006
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2010-01-26Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2010ICPSR26602NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
To reduce respondent burden and improve data quality and timeliness, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) split the jail census into two parts: The Census of Jail Inmates was conducted with a reference date of June 30, 2005. The following spring it was followed by this enumeration, the Census of Jail Facilities, which collected data as of March 31, 2006. Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), and 1999 (ICPSR 3318). The United States Census Bureau collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The 2006 Census of Jail Facilities gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.
The census collected jurisdictional level information on the
number of confined inmates; average daily population; number of
separate jail facilities; renovation and building plans; court
orders and consent decrees; staff by occupational category and
race/ethnicity; jail programs; and costs of operation. The
census also collected individual jail facility information on
the purpose for which the jail held offenders; gender of the
inmates authorized to house; functions, such as general adult
population confinement, work release, and medical treatment;
whether a separate temporary holding area or lockup was
operated; rated capacity; number of confined inmates by gender
and adult or juvenile status; year of original construction;
and whether the facility ever had a major renovation.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26602.v1
correctional facilitiesicpsrcorrectional officersicpsrcorrectional systemicpsrcorrections managementicpsrcensus dataicpsrjail inmatesicpsrjailsicpsrpersonnelicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrinmate populationsicpsrinmate programsicpsrinmatesicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemDSDR VI. Population CharacteristicsNACJD III. CorrectionsUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)26602Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26602.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR29503MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR29503MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units, 2007
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2011-03-22Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR29503NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The 2007 Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) collected data from all state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers and at least one officer dedicated solely to addressing gangs and gang activities. Law enforcement agencies are often the first line of response to the gang problems experienced across the country and are a critical component of most anti-gang initiatives. One way for law enforcement agencies to address gang-related problems is to form specialized gang units. The consolidation of an agency's gang enforcement activities and resources into a single unit can allow gang unit officers to develop specific expertise and technical skills related to local gang characteristics and behaviors and gang prevention and suppression.
No prior studies have collected data regarding the organization and operations of law enforcement gang units nationwide, the types of gang prevention tactics employed, or the characteristics and training of gang unit officers.
This CLEGU collected data on the operations, workload, policies, and procedures of gang units in large state and local law enforcement agencies in order to expand knowledge of gang prevention and enforcement tactics. The CLEGU also collected summary measures of gang activity in the agencies' jurisdictions to allow for comparison across jurisdictions with similar gang problems.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29503.v1
gangsicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)29503Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29503.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR29502MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR29502MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Public Defender Offices
[electronic resource]County-Based and Local Offices, 2007
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2011-05-13Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR29502NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization.
Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available.
States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds.
The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded.
The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29502.v1
expendituresicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsroffendericpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)29502Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29502.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR29501MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR29501MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Public Defender Offices
[electronic resource]State Programs, 2007
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2011-05-13Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR29501NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization.
Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available.
States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds.
The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded.
The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29501.v1
defendantsicpsrexpendituresicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrlegal representationicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrpublic defendersicpsrNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)29501Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29501.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR04287MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2005 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR04287MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-09-02Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2005ICPSR4287NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
To obtain current baseline information about the workload
and operations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted its first census of publicly
funded forensic crime laboratories from 2003 to 2004. Data were
collected on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload,
and performance expectations of the nation's publicly funded federal,
state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04287.v1
budgetsicpsrcrime laboratoriesicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrexpendituresicpsrforensic sciencesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)4287Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04287.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR23120MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2008 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR23120MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 and 2005
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2008-10-24Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2008ICPSR23120NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2002 and 2005. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. Data were collected from 2003 to 2004 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2002. A total of 306 of the 351 crime laboratories operating in 2002 responded to the census. The latest census obtained data from 351 of the 389 laboratories operating in 2005, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2005, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2005 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23120.v1
policies and proceduresicpsrbudgetsicpsrcrime laboratoriesicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrexpendituresicpsrforensic sciencesicpsrpersonnelicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)23120Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23120.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR34340MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2012 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR34340MiAaIMiAaI
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2012-11-26Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2012ICPSR34340NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2009. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2009 study, data were collected from 2010 to 2011 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2009. A total of 397 of the 411 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2009 responded to the census, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2009, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2009 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34340.v1
budgetsicpsrcrime laboratoriesicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrexpendituresicpsrforensic sciencesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)34340Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34340.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR07852MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1984 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR07852MiAaIMiAaI
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1979
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1984ICPSR7852NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This census, designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
and conducted by the United States Census Bureau, includes
all state correctional facilities known to the Census Bureau in 1979.
Each facility is classified into one of ten categories such as
community center, prison farm, road camp, or reception center. Data
for 1979 include number of inmates by security classification and by
sex, number of full- and part-time staff, number of paid and volunteer
staff broken down by position, age, pay, and education, number and age of
facilities, type of facilities provided in each cell by size of cell,
hospital facilities available, programs provided for the inmates, job
training, and inmate IQ scores.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07852.v2
correctional facilitiesicpsrcorrectional facilities (adults)icpsrcorrectionsicpsrcorrections managementicpsrinmate classificationicpsrinmate deathsicpsrinmate populationsicpsrinmate programsicpsrinmatesicpsrjailsicpsrpersonnelicpsrprison administrationicpsrprison conditionsicpsrprison constructionicpsrprison overcrowdingicpsrprison violenceicpsrNACJD III. CorrectionsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)7852Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07852.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR08444MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1987 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08444MiAaIMiAaI
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1984
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1987ICPSR8444NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study provides a descriptive analysis of confinement
facilities and state-operated community-based correctional facilities
nationwide. Decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers may use the
census to analyze the current conditions and needs of state
correctional facilities for adults. Variables of interest include
physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities,
programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under
court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and
operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and
average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work
assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and
incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08444.v1
correctional facilitiesicpsrcorrectional facilities (adults)icpsrcorrectionsicpsrcorrections managementicpsrinmate deathsicpsrinmate populationsicpsrinmate programsicpsrinmatesicpsrjailsicpsrpersonnelicpsrprison administrationicpsrprison conditionsicpsrprison constructionicpsrprison overcrowdingicpsrprison securityicpsrprison violenceicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD III. CorrectionsUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8444Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08444.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR27681MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR27681MiAaIMiAaI
Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA), 2008
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2011-08-03Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR27681NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) is conducted every 4 years to provide a complete enumeration of agencies and their employees. Employment data are reported by agencies for sworn and nonsworn (civilian) personnel and, within these categories, by full-time or part-time status. The pay period that included September 30, 2008, was the reference date for all personnel data.
Agencies also complete a checklist of functions they regularly perform, or have primary responsibility for, within the following areas: patrol and response, criminal investigation, traffic and vehicle-related functions, detention-related functions, court-related functions, special public safety functions (e.g., animal control), task force participation, and specialized functions (e.g., search and rescue).
The CSLLEA provides national data on the number of state and local law enforcement agencies and employees for local police departments, sheriffs' offices, state law enforcement agencies, and special jurisdiction agencies. It also serves as the sampling frame for BJS surveys of law enforcement agencies.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27681.v1
census dataicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolice officersicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)27681Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27681.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR08696MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1987 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08696MiAaIMiAaI
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1986
[electronic resource][United States]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
1992-02-16Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1987ICPSR8696NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This dataset lists law enforcement agencies and contains
variables regarding employment categories such as total full-time,
part-time, sworn-in, and other employees. It also contains FIPS codes
and populations.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08696.v1
authorityicpsrfull time employmenticpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrpart time employmenticpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrpersonnelicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8696Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08696.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02266MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1998 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02266MiAaIMiAaI
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1992
[electronic resource] [United States]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1998ICPSR2266NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
To ensure an accurate sampling frame for its Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics periodically sponsors a census of the
nation's state and local law enforcement agencies. This census, known
as the Directory Survey, gathers data on all police and sheriffs'
departments that are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time
or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers. This data
collection, compiled in July 1992, represents the second such census,
with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]). Variables include
personnel totals, type of agency, geographic location of agency, and
whether the agency had the legal authority to hold a person beyond
arraignment for 48 or more hours.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02266.v1
authorityicpsrfull time employmenticpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrpart time employmenticpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrpersonnelicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2266Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02266.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02260MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1998 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02260MiAaIMiAaI
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996
[electronic resource] [United States]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
1998-09-11Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1998ICPSR2260NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
To ensure an accurate sampling frame for its Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics periodically sponsors a census of the
nation's state and local law enforcement agencies. This census, known
as the Directory Survey, gathers data on 49 primary state law
enforcement agencies and all sheriffs' departments, local police
departments, and special police agencies (state or local) that are
publicly funded and employ at least one sworn officer with general
arrest powers. The 1996 Directory Survey collected data on the number
of sworn and nonsworn personnel employed by each agency, including
both full-time and part-time employees. Within the full-time sworn
category, data were collected from all agencies on the number who were
uniformed officers with regularly assigned duties that included
responding to calls for service. For agencies with at least 10
full-time sworn officers, the number whose primary duties were related
to investigations, court operations, or jail operations was also
obtained. This data collection, compiled in June 1996, represents the
third such census, with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]) and the
second in 1992 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1992: [UNITED
STATES] [ICPSR 2266]). Variables include personnel totals, type of
government, type of agency, and whether the agency had the legal
authority to hold a person beyond arraignment for 48 or more hours.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02260.v1
authorityicpsrfull time employmenticpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrpart time employmenticpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrpersonnelicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2260Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02260.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02992MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02992MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services Funded by the Violence Against Women Act in Urban Ohio, 1999
[electronic resource]
Carol Bohmer
,
Denise E. Bronson
,
Helen Hartnett
,
Jennifer Brandt
,
Kristen S. Kania
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2992NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The focus of this research and evaluation endeavor was on
direct service programs in Ohio, particularly advocacy services for
female victims of violence, receiving funding through the Services,
Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) formula grants under the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The objectives of this
project were (1) to describe and compare existing advocacy services in
Ohio, (2) to compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key
variables in the delivery of services, (3) to develop a better
understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and
delivered, and (4) to assess the effectiveness of those services. For
Part 1, Service Agencies Data, comprehensive information about 13
VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in urban Ohio was
gathered through a mailback questionnaire and phone interviews.
Detailed information was collected on organizational structure,
clients served, and agency services. Focus groups were also used to
collect data from clients (Parts 3-11) and staff (Parts 12-23) about
their definitions of advocacy, types of services needed by victims,
services provided to victims, and important outcomes for service
providers. Part 2, Police Officer Data, focused on police officers'
attitudes toward domestic violence and on evaluating service outcomes
in one particular agency. The agency selected was a prosecutor's
office that planned to improve services to victims by changing how the
police and prosecutors responded to domestic violence cases. The
prosecutor's office selected one police district as the site for
implementing the new program, which included training police officers
and placing a prosecutor in the district office to work directly with
the police on domestic violence cases. The evaluation of this program
was designed to assess the effectiveness of the police officers'
training and officers' increased access to information from the
prosecutor on the outcome of the case. Police officers from the
selected district were administered surveys. Also surveyed were
officers from another district that handled a similar number of
domestic violence cases and had a comparable number of officers
employed in the district. Variables in Part 1 include number of staff,
budget, funding sources, number and type of victims served, target
population, number of victims served speaking languages other than
English, number of juveniles and adults served, number of victims with
special needs served, collaboration with other organizations, benefits
of VAWA funding, and direct and referral services provided by the
agency. Variables in Part 2 cover police officers' views on whether it
was a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases, if these
cases were likely to result in a conviction, whether they felt
sympathetic toward the victim or blamed the victim, how the
prosecution should proceed with domestic violence cases, how the
prosecution and police worked together on such cases, whether domestic
violence was a private matter, and how they felt about the new program
implemented under VAWA.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02992.v2
case processingicpsrclient characteristicsicpsrclientsicpsrdomestic violenceicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice responseicpsrpolice trainingicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrvictim servicesicpsrvictimsicpsrbattered womenicpsrNACJD XIII. Violence Against WomenNACJD X. VictimizationICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemBohmer, CarolBronson, Denise E.Hartnett, HelenBrandt, JenniferKania, Kristen S.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2992Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02992.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR08407MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1985 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08407MiAaIMiAaI
Implementation of Community Corrections in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut [1981]
[electronic resource]
Dennis J. Palumbo
,
Michael Musheno
,
Steven Maynard-Moody
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1985ICPSR8407NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
Data were collected from three states to evaluate the
success of community corrections programs and to identify the
conditions that underlie these successes. In-person field interviews,
telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires were used at state,
county, and district levels. The variables in the study were designed
to examine the kinds of people who implement and maintain these
programs, the level of commitment by judicial and prison officials to
these programs, community support, and the goals of cost reduction,
work training, and rehabilitation.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08407.v1
achievementicpsrcommunitiesicpsrcommunity service programsicpsrcorrectional facilitiesicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrgoalsicpsrparole servicesicpsrpersonnelicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrehabilitation programsicpsrsuccessicpsrtrainingicpsrNACJD III. CorrectionsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemPalumbo, Dennis J.Musheno, MichaelMaynard-Moody, StevenInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8407Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08407.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09222MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1989 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09222MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1987
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2012-08-01Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1989ICPSR9222NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the first in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on three types of general purpose law enforcement agencies: state police, local police, and sheriffs' departments. Data from the primary state police agency in each of 49 states (Hawaii does not have a state police agency) are also presented. Variables include size of the populations served by the typical police or sheriffs' department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, and other matters relating to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09222.v3
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9222Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09222.v3 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09749MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09749MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1990
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2012-08-02Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR9749NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the second in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on four types of general-purpose law enforcement agencies: state police, local police, special police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09749.v3
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9749Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09749.v3 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06708MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1996 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06708MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1993
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2012-08-02Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1996ICPSR6708NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the third in the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS),
presents information on five types of general-purpose law enforcement
agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local),
municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of
the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of
employment and spending, various functions of the department, average
salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other
matters related to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06708.v3
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6708Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06708.v3 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02700MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1999 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02700MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
[electronic resource]1997 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2008-12-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1999ICPSR2700NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the fourth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02700.v1
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2700Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02700.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03079MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2001 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03079MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
[electronic resource]1999 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2008-12-09Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2001ICPSR3079NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the fourth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03079.v2
managementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsradministrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3079Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03079.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03565MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03565MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
[electronic resource]2000 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2008-12-08Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3565NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey, the sixth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS),
presents information on law enforcement agencies in the United States:
state police, county police, special police (state and local),
municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of
the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of
employment and spending, various functions of the department, average
salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other
matters related to management and personnel.This survey, the sixth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies in the United States: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03565.v2
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and BehaviorUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3565Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03565.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR04411MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2006 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR04411MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
[electronic resource]2003 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2006-05-10Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2006ICPSR4411NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally
representative sample of publicly funded State and local law
enforcement agencies in the United States. Data include agency
personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, community policing
initiatives, equipment, computers and information systems, and written
policies. The LEMAS survey has been conducted in 1987, 1990, 1993,
1997, 1999 (limited scope), 2000, and 2003.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04411.v1
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and BehaviorNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)4411Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04411.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR31161MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR31161MiAaIMiAaI
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2007
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2011-07-07Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR31161NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
Every three to four years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys a nationally
representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies. The surveys
are conducted as part of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) program. Data include agency
personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, community policing
initiatives, equipment, computers and information systems, and written
policies. The LEMAS survey has been conducted in 1987, 1990, 1993,
1997, 1999 (limited scope), 2000, 2003, and 2007.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR31161.v1
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrstatistical dataicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and BehaviorUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)31161Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR31161.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09923MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09923MiAaIMiAaI
National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Personnel in the United States, 1986
[electronic resource]
J. Thomas McEwen
,
Barbara Webster
,
Edward Connors
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR9923NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey probed the needs and problems facing local
criminal justice practitioners. Within each sampled county, survey
questionnaires were distributed to the police chief of the largest
city, the sheriff, the jail administrator, the prosecutor, the chief
trial court judge, the trial court administrator (where applicable),
and probation and parole agency heads. Although the general topics
covered in the questionnaires are similar, specific items are not
repeated across the questionnaires, except for those given to the
sheriffs and the police chiefs. The sheriffs surveyed were those with
law enforcement responsibilities, so the questions asked of the police
chiefs and the sheriffs were identical. The questionnaires were
tailored to each group of respondents, and dealt with five general
areas: (1) background characteristics, including staff size, budget
totals, and facility age, (2) criminal justice system problems, (3)
prison crowding, (4) personnel issues such as training needs and
programs, and (5) operations and procedures including management,
management information, and the specific operations in which the
respondents were involved. In some cases, sets of question items were
grouped into question batteries that dealt with specific topic areas
(e.g., staff recruitment, judicial training, and number of personnel).
For example, the Staff Recruitment battery items in the Probation and
Parole Questionnaire asked respondents to use a 4 point scale to
indicate the seriousness of each of the following problems: low
salaries, poor image of corrections work, high entrance requirements,
location of qualified staff, shortage of qualified minority
applicants, and hiring freezes.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09923.v1
law enforcement agenciesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpersonnel managementicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrprison administrationicpsrprison overcrowdingicpsrtrainingicpsrbudgetsicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrcorrectional facilitiesicpsrcourtsicpsrNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemMcEwen, J. ThomasWebster, BarbaraConnors, EdwardInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9923Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09923.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR07675MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1984 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR07675MiAaIMiAaI
National Manpower Survey, 1973-1976
[electronic resource]
Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
1992-02-16Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1984ICPSR7675NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
required only to be in a position to provide
accurate, reliable information.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07675.v1
correctional facilities (adults)icpsrcorrectional facilities (juveniles)icpsrcourt systemicpsrcourtsicpsrcrimeicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrdefense counselicpsrhiring practicesicpsrlabor forceicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrmanagementicpsroccupationsicpsrparole servicesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrpolice trainingicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprison administrationicpsrprobation servicesicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrtrainingicpsrwages and salariesicpsrwork attitudesicpsrworkersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemBureau of Social Science Research, Inc.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)7675Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07675.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02433MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1998 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02433MiAaIMiAaI
National Prosecutors Survey, 1996
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1998ICPSR2433NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of
chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an
official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of
district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a
prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who
conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state
court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as
municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's
purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors'
offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The
data collection instrument was based on questions that were included
in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and also added
queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing,
workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had,
whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with
other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea
negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA
analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the
prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face
assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district
office.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02433.v1
treatment programsicpsrattorneysicpsrcase processingicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrdistrict attorneysicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrevidenceicpsrtrial proceduresicpsrvictim servicesicpsrfelony courtsicpsrfelony offensesicpsrjuvenile courtsicpsrpersonnelicpsrplea negotiationsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrprosecutionicpsrsentencingicpsrstate courtsicpsrtrainingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD V. CourtsUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2433Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02433.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR04600MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2007 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR04600MiAaIMiAaI
National Prosecutors Survey, 2005
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2007-02-23Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2007ICPSR4600NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of
chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an
official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of
district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a
prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who
conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state
court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as
municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's
purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors'
offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The
data collection instrument was based on questions that were included
in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and added
queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing,
workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had,
whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with
other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea
negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA
analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the
prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face
assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district
office.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04600.v1
trial proceduresicpsrvictim servicesicpsrattorneysicpsrcase processingicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrdistrict attorneysicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrevidenceicpsrfelony courtsicpsrfelony offensesicpsrjuvenile courtsicpsrpersonnelicpsrplea negotiationsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrprosecutionicpsrsentencingicpsrstate courtsicpsrtrainingicpsrtreatment programsicpsrNACJD V. CourtsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)4600Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04600.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR33202MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2012 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR33202MiAaIMiAaI
National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2012-05-14Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2012ICPSR33202NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked
the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the
United States. The first census, conducted in 2001,
included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time.
The second census included the 2,330 state court
prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census
included offices of municipal attorneys or county
attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited
jurisdiction.
State court prosecutors serve in the executive
branch of state governments and handle felony
cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law,
these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in
determining who is charged with an offense and
whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also
referred to as the district attorney, county attorney,
commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents
the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the
public as an elected or appointed public official.
The Office of the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor
included in the census. This unique office is
responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes
committed in the District and also for prosecution of
federal cases, whether criminal or civil.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33202.v1
personnelicpsrplea negotiationsicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrprosecutionicpsrsentencingicpsrstate courtsicpsrtrainingicpsrtreatment programsicpsrtrial proceduresicpsrvictim servicesicpsrattorneysicpsrcase processingicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrdistrict attorneysicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrevidenceicpsrfelony courtsicpsrfelony offensesicpsrjuvenile courtsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD V. CourtsUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)33202Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33202.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02879MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02879MiAaIMiAaI
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2879NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study reports findings from a survey of publicly
operated forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
testing. The survey includes questions about each lab's budget,
personnel, workload, and operating policies and procedures. Data were
obtained from 108 out of 120 estimated known labs, including all
statewide labs.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02879.v1
crime laboratoriesicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrforensic sciencesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2879Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02879.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03550MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03550MiAaIMiAaI
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3550NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study contains data from a survey of publicly operated
forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
testing. The survey was a follow-up to the initial survey of DNA crime
labs in 1998 (ICPSR study 2879). The survey included questions about
each lab's budget, personnel, procedures, equipment, and workloads in
terms of known subject cases, unknown subject cases, and convicted
offender DNA samples. The survey was sent to 135 forensic laboratories,
and 124 responses were received from individual public laboratories and
headquarters for statewide forensic crime laboratory systems. The
responses included 110 publicly funded forensic laboratories that
performed DNA testing in 47 states.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03550.v1
crime laboratoriesicpsrcriminal investigationsicpsrDNA fingerprintingicpsrforensic sciencesicpsrpersonnelicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3550Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03550.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06846MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s1997 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06846MiAaIMiAaI
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995
[electronic resource][United States]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1997ICPSR6846NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
In 1995, to determine the nature of law enforcement
services provided on campus, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
surveyed four-year institutions of higher education in the United
States with 2,500 or more students. This survey describes nearly 600
of these campus law enforcement agencies in terms of their personnel,
expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information
systems, policies, and special programs. The survey was based on the
BJS Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
program, which collected similar data from a national sample of state
and local law enforcement agencies.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06846.v1
workersicpsradministrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrcollegesicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsruniversitiesicpsrwages and salariesicpsrNACJD IX. PoliceICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6846Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06846.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR27261MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150303s2010 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR27261MiAaIMiAaI
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004-2005
[electronic resource] [United States]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
2010-03-09Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2010ICPSR27261NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-03.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This survey covered the 2004-2005 academic year and collected data from law enforcement agencies using sworn police officers and those using only non-sworn security officers. Agencies serving 4-year United States universities and colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 2,500 or more, and
those serving 2-year public colleges with a fall 2004
enrollment of 10,000 or more were surveyed. United States military
academies and for-profit institutions were excluded. Data were collected in conjunction with the 2004 BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. The survey instrument was patterned after the BJS Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
survey. Data were collected describing campus law
enforcement agencies, including personnel, expenditures
and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information
systems, policies, and special programs. BJS conducted an earlier survey of campus law enforcement agencies, covering the 1994-1995 school year. Users can access the data collection from the ICPSR Web site (ICPSR 6846).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27261.v1
administrationicpsrbudgetsicpsrcollegesicpsrlaw enforcementicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrmanagementicpsrpersonnelicpsruniversitiesicpsrwages and salariesicpsrworkersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IX. PoliceUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice StatisticsInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)27261Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27261.v1